violentsalvation:The Sun and the Daily Mail sure report a lot on people like this. They must handsomely compensate the lazy bastards. Either that or they just feel THAT entitled that they are willing to talk about it. Maybe both. I dunno.

I like to dream that they are actually turning these people in so they can get kicked off the teat.

LiberalConservative:A SOLUTION. Long-term unemployed are required to log a minimum number of hours of community service in order to receive their welfare payments. Ta-da! Suddenly they must work either way, and contribute to society either way. This was done in Australia (blessed Howard by memory) and out came the bleeding heart libtards saying its disgustingly unfair.

I'd say that far enough as long as you made the trust fund kiddies and the people (under 60) who live on investments alone also do community service. I mean if we are talking about the moral imperative to work it should apply to all classes.

Lernaeus:I've got family that are entitlement sponges ... liars and con artists, too, since they receive all kinds of benefits they legally don't qualify for.

I'm squeaking by working 50+ hours at a job and earning extra money on music and art projects, and they're not only bringing in more money than I am, but have all the free time in the world to drink, eat pills, smoke pot, party, play video games, eat out, and so on. They actually make fun of me "behind my back" for working (I guess they think I don't know how Facebook works).

Yeah, corporations need to stop getting government money (not to mention foreign countries), but so do welfare queens. The system is being abused on a rampant scale, and despite alleged initiatives to get people working and independent, entitlement workers actually advise people on methods of obtaining MORE in handouts.

So report the cheating family to the relevant authorities. They will investigate.

When I was 19, I was on benefits as an unmarried mom with no skills. I decided to go to college to be a scientist. I was accepted as a transfer from a community college into a good 4year college for a astro/physics degree and that summer began to volunteer as an intern at a local observatory. Our local paper got wind of my bootstrappiness thru the community colleges' PR person and the did a little story in the paper about how a welfare mom went to college and was now in an internship at an observatory.

That next week I had to embarrass myself by getting written notes from the head of the facility where I was interning, promising that I was not being compensated for my internship in any way -- because a paper pusher at the welfare office saw the article.

IlGreven:LiberalConservative: A SOLUTION. Long-term unemployed are required to log a minimum number of hours of community service in order to receive their welfare payments. Ta-da! Suddenly they must work either way, and contribute to society either way. This was done in Australia (blessed Howard by memory) and out came the bleeding heart libtards saying its disgustingly unfair.

Another solution? Maybe corporations could offer jobs that pay the job-seekers more than they get sitting at home.

But no, that would cut into a corp's profit, so that's right out.

Er... in my unemployed experiences (including right now), 20 hours a week of min wage work will net you more than unemployment payments (Australia). This may vary elsewhere due to minimum wage rates and size of welfare payments. Is a balance i guess. If corporations are not paying enough to provide incentive to work I would expect government to impose increases to minimum wage; its in their best interest to do so since reducing welfare claims helps government budgets. Or we could just hate on corporations because it is fun and socialism is so awesome.

I work with a Guy that likes to play the system. He has a baby with his batshiat crazy girlfriend (she's 21, its her 3rd kid with her 3rd baby-daddy) . When I say batshiat crazy, I'm talking diagnosed, unmedicated, split personality disorder. One personality even tries to kill him sometimes. Needless to say, she's receiving disability and all sorts of other benefits. So back to him, every January and July he calls in to work at least 2 or 3 times a week because he has to recertify for his handouts so he has to show he doesn't make much money. He even brags about it at work. We all biatch about how much of our paychecks is taken out in taxes, and he brags because he is collecting it.

LiberalConservative:A SOLUTION. Long-term unemployed are required to log a minimum number of hours of community service in order to receive their welfare payments. Ta-da! Suddenly they must work either way, and contribute to society either way. This was done in Australia (blessed Howard by memory) and out came the bleeding heart libtards saying its disgustingly unfair.

I did volunteer while I was on unemployment, mostly to take my mind off the fact that the 30+ job postings I'd applied to last week had either been filled already or the hiring manager wasn't taking 'check-up' calls on the positions. It was incredibly disheartening and discouraging spending hours of my day filling out job applications and typing up cover letters and catering my resume to each position (and yes, I was qualified for the positions for which I was applying) ... and hearing nothing in return. I volunteered at a public library and helped out at the front circulation desk so that I could keep my customer service skills sharp and 'advertise' myself, per se, by frankly telling anyone who asked why a woman in her mid-20s was a volunteer and not an employee my situation in the hopes that one of them might say, "Well, my company is hiring for some positions, here's my card".

Three months before my UA ran out, I moved from FL to another state. Within six weeks of my move, I had interviewed, been hired and had started training at a full-time temp job.

tl;dr: I volunteered while I was unemployed to stay sane and to maintain my customer service skills.

LostGuy:LiberalConservative: A SOLUTION. Long-term unemployed are required to log a minimum number of hours of community service in order to receive their welfare payments. Ta-da! Suddenly they must work either way, and contribute to society either way. This was done in Australia (blessed Howard by memory) and out came the bleeding heart libtards saying its disgustingly unfair.

I'd say that far enough as long as you made the trust fund kiddies and the people (under 60) who live on investments alone also do community service. I mean if we are talking about the moral imperative to work it should apply to all classes.

That's just... strange. If someone earns enough from investments to support themselves they are not a burden on welfare and those that pay taxes, so there is no problem here.You just want to punish rich people for the sake of it? Most older rich people often do volunteer work on their own volition anyhow, its boring to do nothing.

clapperton:I work with a Guy that likes to play the system. He has a baby with his batshiat crazy girlfriend (she's 21, its her 3rd kid with her 3rd baby-daddy) . When I say batshiat crazy, I'm talking diagnosed, unmedicated, split personality disorder. One personality even tries to kill him sometimes. Needless to say, she's receiving disability and all sorts of other benefits. So back to him, every January and July he calls in to work at least 2 or 3 times a week because he has to recertify for his handouts so he has to show he doesn't make much money. He even brags about it at work. We all biatch about how much of our paychecks is taken out in taxes, and he brags because he is collecting it.

Oh, I'm SO jealous of that lifestyle and the welfare money she's collecting.

The handout certification is probably so he doesn't make too much money to reduce her benefits, as they're together. Once a woman with kids from multiple fathers enters the system, shes better off single. The system is set up to keep men away from their children and out of the woman's household, or him not working if they're in the household. Mom is bat shiat crazy, the dad being around is probably saving the state a lot of foster and other costs.

LiberalConservative:Er... in my unemployed experiences (including right now), 20 hours a week of min wage work will net you more than unemployment payments (Australia).

In America, I believe that unemployment benefits are scaled to what you paid in, so here even full time min. wage work won't generally cover the bennies of a guy who was "too expensive" for a corporation to keep.

LiberalConservative:Or we could just hate on corporations because it is fun and socialism is so awesome.

Because expecting corporations to actually leave society better than when they took it is socialism, apparently.

Raise the minimum wage. Tax companies that outsource into oblivion and encourage home grown replacements of those companies. Any able bodied person on assistance longer than six months has to go to school or work a couple days a week. If they are in public housing that work can be done maintaining/administrating the complex.

Necessities have become far too expensive, wages have stagnated and companies don't want to hire locally.

That said... this article is a steaming pile of bullsh*t. If it's not I'm sure whoever handles their case will be giving them a talking to very soon.Hurr durr poor people be stealing mah monies!! Most of you idiots don't even pay taxes.

IlGreven:LiberalConservative: Er... in my unemployed experiences (including right now), 20 hours a week of min wage work will net you more than unemployment payments (Australia).

In America, I believe that unemployment benefits are scaled to what you paid in, so here even full time min. wage work won't generally cover the bennies of a guy who was "too expensive" for a corporation to keep.

LiberalConservative: Or we could just hate on corporations because it is fun and socialism is so awesome.

Because expecting corporations to actually leave society better than when they took it is socialism, apparently.

/Meanwhile, you might wanna steer clear of false dichotomies.

Lighten up, tongue in cheek etc. Sounds like the American system is out of balance then, and perhaps corporation's requirements need adjusting. But I do hope you realise the purpose of a corporation is not to benefit society. Rather their purpose is to make profit which just happens to produce other benefits to society like products, services, employment, taxes and so on. If you do not agree to that... what solution or system do you suggest? Socialism/communism/comunes? -That last bit was more tongue in cheek in case you missed it.

thepeterd:Gina could easily earn £110 an hour as an escort, probably more with that pretty month. I am assuming Gina is the one on the right in the photograph...

She wouldn't get £110/hr as an escort. She's not ugly, but she's really at a massage parlour standard. OK, if she got back-to-back clients, she'd get £100+, but a lot of the time, the girls in a massage parlour are sitting around waiting for a client.

LostGuy:Any sort of means-tested welfare will always backfire. What we need in developed countries is a universal citizens dividend that everyone receives whether they are disabled and can't work, work all the odd jobs they can, has a steady job, or makes millions on real-estate. We could get rid of so many beurocrats and paperwork. And we can make any job worth having.

Yeah, it makes a lot of sense although it could be a hard sell to some. But the benefits are that low paying jobs aren't effectively taxed at sometimes 80% or more because of all the welfare lost by the way the system works, without having to punish some 2 year old kids because of who they were born to.

Pretty sure it would never be implemented in the US even if it was massively successful in every other developed nation, I mean look at healthcare systems where the US can steadfastly maintain the worst of all possible worlds (for non-millionaires, and even just a millionaire is probably not 100% safe if they get the wrong illness and their insurance guy wants a bonus this year). After all a citizens dividend would also be paid out to blacks and hispanics, not just white people, so the majority of the white poor would vote/campaign against it.

Hrm.....either there are hordes of British people living on the dole, yet willing to make themselves targets for investigation and possibly losing their benefits by openly admitting they're flouting the rules, naming themselves, and even posing for "fark you gubmint, bring it on!" photos or....

LostGuy:LiberalConservative: A SOLUTION. Long-term unemployed are required to log a minimum number of hours of community service in order to receive their welfare payments. Ta-da! Suddenly they must work either way, and contribute to society either way. This was done in Australia (blessed Howard by memory) and out came the bleeding heart libtards saying its disgustingly unfair.

I'd say that far enough as long as you made the trust fund kiddies and the people (under 60) who live on investments alone also do community service. I mean if we are talking about the moral imperative to work it should apply to all classes.

There's a bit of a difference there, in that the trust fund kiddies and retirees aren't living on the government dime.

But then, expecting people to work is socialism - to each according to their needs, from each according to their abilities, and all that. Just dispensing checks without requesting anything in return is corporatism...

My brother is on disability, and he has a nice TV too. Because it was gifted to him. A disabled vet I know has his own home, two cars, and a small sailboat. He inherited them. Maybe people shouldn't get outraged about things when they don't have all the pertinent facts.

Let's see, the war on poverty where you take money from one person and give it to another has been going on for close to 70 years, spent TRILLIONS of dollars and has enslaved more people without raising them out of poverty?

jso2897:I wonder if there are British people who read the Enquirer or the World net Daily and think it's really about stuff that actually happens in America.

The ones who read the Enquirer knew that John Edwards was having an affair long before those who only get their news from the liberal media had a clue. Tabloids are more trustworthy than most of the liberal media these days.

neenerist:here to help: Raise the minimum wage. Tax companies that outsource into oblivion....Necessities have become far too expensive, wages have stagnated and companies don't want to hire locally....

Raising wages and taxes will cause prices to rise. Math is cruel taskmaster.

I don't have the link handy, but a study was done on that, and found that a 10% increase in the minimum wage resulted in a whopping 0.01% increase in the price of products and services. The whole, "OMG, if we pay the poors more money, everything will get too expensive!" is a bullshiat myth.

Are you sure that's this weeks spin? Are welfare recipients living like kings with multiple color TVs, video game consoles, $400 sneakers, and even (gasp!) refrigerators in their homes? Or has all anti-poverty spending been for naught, not lifting a single person out of poverty? Based on this article, I think it's the latter. But I don't hold it against you: it changes so fast it's hard for anyone to keep up.

I have yet to encounter someone who can give me a legitemate reason why this is so bad. Oh sure, they can come up with plenty of reasons that are just different ways of whining "b-b-but it's not FAIIIIIIIIRRRR!!!", but no one ever comes up with an objectively good reason that people living "on the dole" are harmful to anyone other than themselves.

Think about it. If it were that bad objectively, then children, retired people, and those too sick or infirm to work would be the worst people ever, right? Most people don't feel that way, but show them some folks like this couple and their inner four year old comes out and they start to whinge and cry about how it's just not fair. Life isn't fair, so get used to it you farkin crybabies.

Teufelaffe:neenerist: here to help: Raise the minimum wage. Tax companies that outsource into oblivion....Necessities have become far too expensive, wages have stagnated and companies don't want to hire locally....

Raising wages and taxes will cause prices to rise. Math is cruel taskmaster.

I don't have the link handy, but a study was done on that, and found that a 10% increase in the minimum wage resulted in a whopping 0.01% increase in the price of products and services. The whole, "OMG, if we pay the poors more money, everything will get too expensive!" is a bullshiat myth.

I think we're approaching pay regulation from the wrong angle though. Employees should share in the profits, not simply get a minimum amount.

Flaumig:I have yet to encounter someone who can give me a legitemate reason why this is so bad. Oh sure, they can come up with plenty of reasons that are just different ways of whining "b-b-but it's not FAIIIIIIIIRRRR!!!", but no one ever comes up with an objectively good reason that people living "on the dole" are harmful to anyone other than themselves.

Think about it. If it were that bad objectively, then children, retired people, and those too sick or infirm to work would be the worst people ever, right? Most people don't feel that way, but show them some folks like this couple and their inner four year old comes out and they start to whinge and cry about how it's just not fair. Life isn't fair, so get used to it you farkin crybabies.

Well, let's see: perhaps it's because old people and children can't be expected to work, but 21 year old adults are perfectly capable of working. And well, I don't mind my money getting spent on educating kids, fixing roads, defence and people who can't work but I take exception to my money being spent on moochers.

I think its great that we have advanced to the point in society that not everyone has to work. These people are now free to pursue more meaningful things in live without having to be tied down to a meaningless job just so they can pay bills.

I know if I didnt have to work and pay biulls, I would do other things that would help people more than my current crappy job.

Here is an uncomfortable truth: Western-style democracy/capitalism is not sustainable in a closed system with limited resources. Technology replaces people in the workforce. That is technology's purpose, from an economic perspective. As technology advances, less people are needed to the same work. We have now largely exploited the easily obtainable natural resources here in the continental US - so the major gravy train that has kept America at the economic forefront is drying up quickly. Employment itself is a finite resource needed by employees, and one that is growing more scarce as technology negates the need for people. This trend is going to continue until the proverbial tipping point is reached. What that tipping point will bring into existence is anyone's guess - but history and fiction do not offer many promising outcomes. Global climate change and water wars will only acerbate the problem.

Doom awaits us. DOOOOOOOM!

I make light of it, because what else can you do? The older I get, the more I think I should take over the world and become a benevolent dictator, despised in my own time, but later realized as someone who Did What Needed Doing.